And what are the diffrences between the diffrent versions???

I personally have the version called “antigua version de casiodoro de reina(1569)” this is a spanish bible though. Do diffrent languages have diffrent versions?

There have been many translations into different languages throughout the ages; the first OT was obviously Hebrew, but then it went to Greek and from there to Latin in the Christian age and thence to many translations in almost every language in the world, if not every single one. So it would be pretty difficult to talk about all Bible translations and versions.

Are there particular versions you want to focus on? English?

The version that I am most familiar with is the King James Version (KJV). I think it is one of the first English translations, I know that King James wanted to standardize the bible into one text that could be read by English speakers (that could also read). I don’t know where it came from, if it was translated from another tongue or tongues. I have read other versions such as the New English Version (?) The problem I have found with these newer versions is that you can take some passages from them and go back to KJV, and you just KNOW it’s not correct. (if, indeed, the KJV is correct in the first place) And remember, these are translations from English TO English! I remember in high school, “Good News For Modern Man” came out, a NEW English version of the New Testament. It was very controversial, but finally, everyone was running around with one of those paperbacks (!) under their arms. The reason that I prefer using the KJV is that the “fundies” (fundamentalist christians) use it and only it. Since those are the ones that want my head on a platter, I need to argue from their point of view also. (Most of the fundies on this site have been flamers, I don’t mean to use the word disparagingly)

I’m rather familiar with the KJV as well, but I prefer Douay-Rheims. This is the direct translation of the Latin Vulgate (Vulgata Clementina).

And yes, different languages = different versions. This is from necessity: Ever try reading a “literal” translation, like Young’s Literal Translation? It’s practically unreadable, especially if you’re not comparing to another version.

The Douay. Good on ya, Bro., that’s my wife’s favorite version. She’s actually got a version with “The Words of our Lord in Red.” Try finding that at Barnes & Noble.

I like messing with the Greek Interlinear, but it’s as big a mess as Young’s.

Douay-Rheims is a favorite of many Catholics ;)

KJV wasn’t really one of the first English translations, to my knowledge. Contrary to popular Protestant belief, the Church had made hundreds of translations into the various common languages of Europe long before the Protestant Reformation.

I have a question. With all the different versions, how do you know which one is the most accurate? Or is everyone taught to use something like a strong’s concordance when studying?

Er, well, I was taught to use Strong’s. blush

And yes, Arandur, I realize it’s a Catholic favorite. That’s actually one of the things that made me turn around and respect the Roman Catholic Church, after a few unfortunate years spent as a “post-Protestant” denying that Catholics are even Christian. That’s one sin of which I was glad to repent.

I have a question. With all the different versions, how do you know which one is the most accurate?

Well, that’s really the question, isn’t it? If you want to go for accuracy, get yourself fluent in Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, slap together a TaNaCh and a Greek Interlinear, and you’ve got an accurate Bible.

Not enough years left in my lifetime to do that, so I fake it with an English translated TaNaCh for OT and flip back and forth between the Oxford Study Bible, Nag Hammadi, and Greek Interlinear for NT.

As has been posted on this site previously, though, the translations are generally pretty good. Select a few of the most respectable translations and read them together, especially along with notes from what the writers’ contemporaries and the early Church Fathers thought about them, and you’ll get a pretty powerful idea of what they mean. Add to that historical study about how the Church has incorporated Scripture into Sacred Tradition, and the picture becomes even clearer.

In other words, yes, it takes work to get really deep into Scripture, but you don’t have to have “one perfect translation.”

thanks for the replys guys :)))

Well, I know I am getting in on this conversation a bit late but, as a Bible scholar, I thought I would take the time to post in hope of shedding a little light on some misinformation in some of the other posts. First of all the original autographs (manuscripts) of the Old Testament were written primarily in Hebrew with a bit of Aramaic in a few places. The original manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek. The King James Version (KJV) was completed in 1611 and the New Testament portion was translated from a manuscript known as the Textus Receptus which was the New Testament in use by the Greek church at that time. Since that time, however, other older manuscripts have been found (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus).

Other than the use of contemporary English, the foundational difference between the KJV and more modern translations is the Greek text from which they are translated. In other words, the most popular modern English translation of the Bible in the U.S. is the New International Version (NIV). It is NOT a translation of the KJV to a more modern English idiom as one of the other posts suggests; it is a fresh translation from a more ancient (and thus more accurate) Greek text. In fact all of the most popular modern English translations (i.e. New American Standard Bible [NASB], New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]) are prepared in this fashion. In all of the translations mentioned, the Hebrew text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Tanakh is an acronym for Torah, Nevi’im, Kethuvim which are the major divisions of the Jewish Scriptures: Law, Prophets, and Writings respectively).

The primary difference between the NIV, NRSV, and NASB is readability. In my opinion, the NIV has the best balance between readability and accuracy. On the other hand, the NASB is amazingly accurate especially in its translation of Greek verbs, the syntax, however, can be a bit challenging compared to the smooth rendering of the NIV.

I hope in some small way this post will help light up the darkness.

Peace be with you.

Hi GenesisOne and welcome to the GSLU website! I have been slightly remiss lately in that I was travelling all week and unable to access the web. Thank you for your reply, I’m sure it will be handy. Please peruse the site, look around, be assured that when you post on a older topic, it won’t be missed. There is an Introduction thread, please check it out. Thanks for coming, tell your friends! Warmest wishes, Ken

I still do not think that the “Good News” New Testament written in 1972 is a new translation. I believe it was an update to more modern English of the KJV. I no longer did any Bible study after 1974, so I don’t know for sure, and of course, don’t have one of those paperback “Good News” books anymore…

things are always lost in translation. word meanings change over the years. Plus the bible was used as a political tool long before this king james version. Too suspect.

emptycalm wrote:
>things are always lost in translation. word meanings change over the years. Plus the bible was used as a political tool long before this king james version. Too suspect.

True. But, doesn’t mean it isn’t worth reading, particularly comparatively with more “heretical” versions and some of the earlier pagan works on which it was largely based.

I’ve taken a look at both the Vulgate and also the Douay-Rheims. It seems to have been translated correctly from Latin to English, but I prefer the New International Version. It’s a translation from the original OT Hebrew and the original NT Greek into English.

Keep in mind that the Vulgate was written without the better manuscripts that we have today. I prefer to get as close to the original language without the “decay” from translating one language into another language into another.

I agree with GenesisOne concerning Greek syntax, but especially concerning the tricky middle voice that’s used in Greek and Latin (Active, Middle, and Passive). Studying Greek and reading the original manuscripts is tedious, but insightful. The NASB really does a very nice job with those syntaxes

Hi MortemDesino, Welcome to God Still Loves Us!

Please introduce yourself in the Introductory thread, should you have the time.

Thank you for your reply to this topic. I know we have some experts in the house.

Warmest welcome!